Tuesday, 31 May 2016

I have just had my attention brought to an article on second home ownership in Cornwall, which has just been posted on the Guardian website.

It was written by a man called Gavin Knight, for whom I did a telephone interview, and a short quote is included within the article. There are a range of comments from a number of individuals, and it is quite interesting to see how varied they are.

It is also fair to say that my views and those of the local estate agent are very, very different.

I am however extremely disappointed by the opening paragraph and the associated headline for the article, which reads: “English Out: Cornwall’s fightback against second homes” and does not really reflect what is being said in the article.

Monday, 30 May 2016

My article in this coming week’s Cornish Guardian updates readers of the paper with progress towards the Cornwall Local Plan. It includes text already featured on this blog, but is hear for the sake of completeness. I hope it is ok, as it was pulled together early this morning after my trip back from Twickenham. It will be as follows:

The second phase of the Examination in Public (EiP) into the Cornwall Local Plan took place over six different sittings in Newquay’s Atlantic Hotel between the 16th and 24th May.

Put simply, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State was reviewing Cornwall Council’s blueprint of planning policies for the period to 2030 to check they were “sound” or, in other words, consistent with central government rules and regulations.

The first phase of the EiP had taken place about twelve months ago, when it was suspended by the Inspector who informed the Council that it needed to make a number of changes. The unitary authority reluctantly, but duly, did as instructed, which included increasing the housing target for Cornwall, and the Local Plan was represented to the EiP.

As the Chairman of the Council’s Planning Policy Advisory Committee, I was there for majority of the hearings and, as a councillor for the China Clay, I spoke against the inclusion of the so-called “eco-community” within the Plan.

It was certainly frustrating to see the host of landowners and developers present, along with their planning agents and even QCs, attempting to make all manner of arguments as to why the Plan should be changed to suit their own commercial interests.

On some days, they made what they claimed to “strategic” and “evidenced” arguments as to why the overall housing target should be increased. But then, at the end of the first week, argued against each other about where housing should be built.

It was quite an unedifying spectacle as the speakers all seemed to be pushing for more housing in those areas where they just happened to own, or have options on, land.

The developers and their representatives also argued that the need for affordable housing was a key justification for an uplift in housing numbers. But when the actual affordable housing policies were discussed, some of these same individuals were, with breathtaking double-standards, arguing for lower affordable housing targets and the inevitable delivery of less local-needs housing.

When, on behalf of local objectors, I spoke to oppose the “eco-community” at West Carclaze and Baal, I found that Wainhomes were also making arguments against the principle of this particular proposal. But whereas as I was stating that the amount of house-building in Mid Cornwall should be reduced, they were, in an act of shocking self-interest, making a range of legalistic points in order to push for an alternative 1,300 property development near St Austell.

And it was very different on the final day when discussions focussed on how policies to protect and enhance Cornwall’s environment, both natural and historic, could be improved. It was telling that most the contributions came from bodies such as the National Trust, statutory agencies and parish councils, while the horde of developers and their agents were largely absent.

I do sincerely hope that the Inspector put the needs of local communities ahead of the wishes of the large developers, and I will report more when he makes his views known.

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

FIRST Kernow will be reintroducing an hourly service between Summercourt and Truro, next week.

The new spring timetables come into operation at the very end of May, and the service between Summercourt and Truro will operate Mondays to Saturdays (though not on public holidays).

As this Monday is a bank holiday, the first buses will be coming through on Tuesday 31st May.

The 92 bus will come through Summercourt once a day. This service, via Indian Queens, will pick up passengers at the London Inn at 07.27. It will arrive in Truro at 07.58.

The 90 bus will then run an hourly service for the remainder of each day. It will enter the village along the A3058 and pick up passengers opposite Beaconside, and then go direct to Truro. The timings are 09.25, 10.25, 11.25, 12.25, 13.25, 14.25, 15.25, 16.30 and 17.30.

Due to the lack of other stops, the journey will take just under half-an-hour.

Most return journeys from the Truro bus station will be on the 90 bus. The departures for these are 08.15, 09.15, 10.15, 11.15, 12.15, 13.15, 14.15, 15.15 and 16.15.

There will be an additional 92 service from Truro which will also stop at Summercourt. This will leave the city at 17.10.

It is my intention to drop a leaflet with the above information around Summercourt in the next couple of days.

At yesterday’s meeting of St Enoder Parish Council, I presented my most recent monthly report. It includes some information already recorded on this blog, covers the time period 25th April to 22nd May 2016, and is as follows:

1. Council meetings

I have attended a range of formal meetings at Cornwall Council over the last month. These included: Full Council (2), Economy and Culture Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), Constitution and Governance Committee, Electoral Review Panel, Group Leaders meeting (2) and the working group on Cornish national minority status.

As well as the meetings listed above, I have had numerous informal meetings with council officers and others to discuss a range of issues. In addition, there have been meetings relating to the planning issues at Higher Fraddon and the “Examination in Public” (EiP) into the Cornwall Local Plan.

2. Other meetings

I have attended meetings of the South and East Cornwall Local Action Group, Indian Queens Pit Committee, and the St Piran Trust (which looks after St Piran’s Oratory near Perranporth).3. AD plant at Penare

As reported in my last monthly report, Greener for Life went to appeal for “non-determination” on the “regularisation” application for the biogas plant at Higher Fraddon (PA15/03073). The company has also appealed the decision of Cornwall Council to refuse its related application (PA15/05220) to modify traffic movements to the site.

Greener for Life had requested that the appeals be heard by “written representations” only but, following representations by Cornwall Council and others, it will now be discussed at a hearing at which local people will be able to speak.

As requested by the Parish Council, I am working on a detailed statement for the appeals. The deadline for submission is 7th June.

On Monday 9th May, I attended a meeting of the Higher Fraddon Residents Forum with Nigel Doyle from Cornwall Council. This was held principally to explain to local residents about what had happened in the planning process, and inform them about the appeal. A representative of the pig farm was present, though Greener for Life did not attend as they had previously stated that did not wish to attend the existing Forum.

Three days later, on Thursday 12th May, I attended the first meeting of a new “Forum” set up by Greener for Life, which included representatives from their company, their contractors, the Environment Agency, Police and the pig farm. Nigel Doyle was present on behalf of Cornwall Council, as was a single resident from the top of the lane who was supportive of the project. The Higher Fraddon Residents Action Group had been invited to send one representative to the meeting, but had declined because they questioned the legitimacy of the Forum.4. Matters of planning policy

A significant part of my workload this month has related to the Examination in Public (EiP) into the proposed Cornwall Local Plan, which has been taking place at Newquay’s Atlantic Hotel. The first week of proceedings took place in the week 16th–20th May, and I was present on four of the five days.

It is fair to say that the proceedings have been swamped by landowners, developers and their agents, each trying to get the Local Plan changed to suit their own development proposals. Overall, contributions from local communities have been much less prominent.

For example, early in the week, representatives of developers and landowners made all manner of apparently “evidenced” arguments as to why housing numbers (in general) should go up. These arguments included the need for affordable housing, but with breathtaking double-standards they then argued for lower affordable housing targets and the inevitable delivery of less local-needs housing.

Towards the end of the week, in an unedifying scramble, representatives of the developers began to contradict each other, arguing for more housing in certain local areas where they just happened to have available land.

As the Chairman of the Plannning PAC, I was present to follow the debate because any specific changes to the document would be referred back to that committee in the near future.

My main contribution at the EiP was to oppose the inclusion of the so-called “eco-community” proposal, near Penwithick. And while I did this, in an act of shocking self-interest, Wainhomes argued a range of legalistic points against the principle of the development, pushing instead for a 1,300 property development near to St Austell.

The debate about affordable housing was overshadowed by the court decision which sided with central government on its “small sites affordable housing contributions policy.” This means that it is likely that Cornwall Council will have no option other than to accept a “threshold of ten units,” below which affordable housing could not be sought – except in certain designated rural areas where the threshold would be five. However, under such guidelines, St Enoder Parish is not deemed rural!

In more positive news, 83% voters in St Ives endorsed a Neighbourhood Plan for their town, which includes a policy to ensure that any new-build properties could not be sold as second homes.

This is of considerable significance for the development of Neighbourhood Plans in certain parts of Cornwall, but a firm of developers is seeking to challenge the democratically expressed views of the people of St Ives through a judicial review. And there have also been newspaper reports stating that central government ministers could “intervene to overturn the ban” on second homes which, I feel, would be an affront to democracy in Cornwall.

5. Full Council; 26th April

Cornwall Council is to carry out a Governance Review, and the proposed way forward was presented to this meeting. I was one of the councillors who found the detail of the proposal to be inconsistent, and successfully argued that it should be referred to the Constitution and Governance Committee to be further scrutinised

This was done and a revised document was referred back to the Full Council meeting on 17th May.

6. Full Council; 17th May

As well as the debate on the Governance Review (see above section), there was an additional debate following a motion tabled by me opposing the creation of a Devonwall parliamentary constituency. In particular, the motion referenced central government’s unwillingness to act on the articles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

A revised resolution had been worked up by a senior officer of the Council, in consultation with me. It had been further amended by members at a meeting of the Constitution and Governance Committee, and was agreed by an overwhelming majority.

It was as follows: (a) Under the current provisions of the Parliamentary and Voting System Act 2011 (“the Act”) it is inevitable that at least one parliamentary constituency will be created that cuts across Cornwall’s historic boundary; (b) the Act was passed prior to the Government’s announcement on 24 April 2014 that the Cornish would be formally recognised as a national minority coming within the protective Articles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; and (c) It is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the said Framework Convention and its application to the protection of the Cornish that the implementation of the current parliamentary constituency review in accordance with the provisions of the Act would lead to the territorial integrity of Cornwall and its historic boundary being compromised.

Council therefore resolves:

(1) to urge the Government to respect the spirit of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and take all necessary steps to amend the Act prior to completion of the said parliamentary constituency review to specifically protect the parliamentary constituencies of Cornwall so that they remain fully within the boundaries of Cornwall; (2) to write to all the Members of Parliament for Cornwall to seek their urgent and active support for the proposed amendment as set out under paragraph (1) above; and (3) that the Leader seek an urgent meeting with the Boundary Commission for England to raise the fundamental constitutional issue of the integrity of Cornwall’s boundary and the impact of the said Framework Convention that is critical to the effective implementation of the said parliamentary constituency review.

At this meeting, the elected members of the authority also voted to accept the findings of an independent panel into councillor allowances for the next council (ie. May 2017 onwards).

The report from the Independent Remuneration Panel stated that the evidence presented to them showed, on average, councillors took 31.5 hours per week to carry out their basic duties. They recommended that the basic allowance should therefore be £13,910 per annum, up from £12,250. The report also included changes to the SRAs (Special Responsibility Allowances) paid to certain councillors for taking on additional responsibilities, such as being a Cabinet Member or chairing a committee.

It is wrong that councillors have to agree their wages and over the last decade and consistently voted down proposals to increase “allowances.” As someone who works full-time in my role as a public representative (on average 45 hours a week on council duties), I believe this issue should not be allowed to become a political football every three-four years.

I will confirm that I did vote to in favour of the recommendations of the Panel, but would add that I do not like the term “allowance” as I work full-time as an elected representative for St Enoder Parish and consider what I get paid to be my wages. 7. Bus services to Summercourt

As reported in recent updates, FIRST Kernow will, next week, be reintroducing an hourly service between Summercourt and Truro.

The new timetables come into operation on Monday 30th May, and the service between Summercourt and Truro will operate Mondays to Saturdays (not including public holidays).

As next Monday is a bank holiday, the first buses will be coming through on Tuesday 31st May.

It is my intention to circulate a leaflet throughout Summercourt this week to keep people informed about the new bus times.

8. My newsletter

Over the last month, I have also been out and about delivering copies of my latest newsletter. I haven’t quite got everywhere yet and estimate there are about a hundred properties, mostly in the rural parts of St Eoder Parish, which have yet to receive the newsletter. I would also like to thank those people who have kindly helped with the deliveries.

It has certainly been nice to catch up with so many people and I have recorded a number of issues, which I have reported to the relevant officers at Cornwall Council. These include concerns about pot-holes, problems with footpaths, overgrown hedges, and speeding traffic.

9. Charity cricket game

But it has not all been work. On the evening of Tuesday 17 May, I took part in the annual Cornwall Council charity cricket match between officers and councillors at Boscawen Park in Truro. It was an even match and, against the odds, for the second year running, the councillors came out on top, with Cllr Jim McKenna hitting the winning run with a single ball to spare.

I didn’t disgrace myself with either my bowling or my fielding, and achieved a single with my batting before being caught by the wicketkeeper.

10. Inquiries

In the last month, I have also helped numerous people with advice and guidance. Issues have included housing problems, benefit issues, various enforcement matters and more.

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

I attended the morning session of today’s final day of the EiP at the Atlantic Hotel, Newquay, and it all felt very different from previous days.

Topics for discussion included the wording for policies to protect and enhance Cornwall’s environment, both natural and historic. It was telling that most the contributions came from bodies such as the National Trust and Natural England, while there were a small number of parish councillors present. Most of the debate related to the fine-tuning of the proposed policies.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the horde of developers and their agents who, last week, were queuing up to demand more housing, were largely not present.

Additional information from today is that it is appears likely that the Inspector will seek that the Council adds an additional allocation into the plan for the “provision of 2,550 places in communal establishments for older persons, including nursing and specialist accommodation.”

This will be a standalone allocation of bed-spaces and will not be included within the overall housing target.

I will report more when the unitary authority gets the initial feedback from the Inspector.

Monday, 23 May 2016

The Office of National Statistics has today published its “full response” to the consultation on content for the 2021 census for "England and Wales.” Also included on the ONS website are a range of topic reports, including one on “ethnicity and national identity.”

I am disappointed in the response from the ONS in relation to requests for a Cornish tickbox in 2021, which would be similar to that afforded to the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh in 2011.

The organisation does reference the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in relation to the Cornish, but also states that the ONS continue to believe that the “provision of write-in options in the ethnic group and national identity questions meet this user requirement.”

Obviously, I think this is not appropriate, though the ONS has also confirmed that there will be a further consultation on options for ethnic group questions.

Specific extracts from the topic report are as follows:

Background

In April 2014 the Framework Convention was amended to include Cornish as a National Minority group. When announcing this change, the Government stated: “The decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.” They go on to state: “The Government’s approach to the Framework Convention is to be modified to recognise the unique position of the Cornish as a Celtic people within England. It is without prejudice as to whether the Cornish meet the definition of “racial group” under the Equality Act 2010 7, as only the courts can rule on that.”

Requests for additional options within the national identity question included further regional identity options, for example Cornish.Equality implications of the updated view of ONS

In 2014, the Cornish were recognised as a National Minority under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. ONS continue to believe that the provision of write-in options in the Ethnic Group and National Identity questions meet this user requirement. In the 2011 Census, 83 thousand usual residents wrote in ‘Cornish’ as their National Identity. Of these, 73 thousand lived in Cornwall, comprising approximately 14% of the population. The remaining 10 thousand resided elsewhere in England and Wales.

Despite the availability of write-in response options ONS has received feedback from some stakeholders expressing the need for the inclusion of more tick-box response options within the ethnic group and national identity questions. Dedicated tick-box options are included where the user need for the data is strongest as space on census forms is finite both online and on paper. With this limitation in mind, ONS intends to undertake a review of the ethnic group response options, and will consider this alongside the national identity and religion response options. This review is discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Next steps

ONS intends to undertake a review of the ethnic group response options, and will consider this alongside the national identity and religion response options. This will involve consultation with stakeholder groups that have expressed an interest in this question.

The review will follow a similar format to that undertaken prior to the 2011 Census whereby response options were prioritised. This methodology is described in the Information Paper “Deciding which tick-boxes to add to the ethnic group question in the 2011 England and Wales Census.” This methodology will be reviewed and updated to reflect current legislation. This will involve engagement with key stakeholders to ensure data needs to support the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 are well understood.

My article in this week's Cornish Guardian looks again at the cuts to Cornish language, focussing on recent comments by certain Tories and the Early Day Motion. It will be as follows:

The decision of “Kellys of Cornwall” to put a Cornish language tv advert at the very heart of their new marketing campaign has provided a massive boost for everyone working to promote the language.

The advert will be broadcast across the whole of the United Kingdom over the next six weeks, but has already generated significant publicity for the ice cream producer – and Cornish itself.

In celebrating our culture and heritage, Kellys see the commercial and economic value in using our distinct language to promote Cornwall and build its positive brand message, also raising awareness of the wonderful goods produced locally.

Kellys should be applauded for taking this initiative. It stands out in stark contrast to the shameful attitude of the UK Government, which recently cut the £150,000 per annum funding to enhance and promote Cornwall’s national tongue.

I have to say I am particularly disappointed by the inaction of Cornwall’s six Tory MPs on this matter, with them saying that Cornwall Council could “make it a priority to fund” the language if they wished, while implying that the so-called “devolution deal” had made more money available – which it hasn’t!

In reality, it is the UK Government which signed up to both the Charter for Regional & Minority Languages and the Framework for the Protection of National Minorities. They have an obligation to support and fund Cornwall’s distinct identity and culture, including the language.

Indeed, a five year programme of funding was actually in the “devolution deal” until removed by central government just before the document was finalised. The leader of Cornwall Council, John Pollard, has confirmed that he had been “reassured” by the Department of Communities and Local Government that the removal of funding from the document “was a technical matter” and “that another funding route would be identified.”

Put simply, the Conservatives have broken their promises on this funding, and it is disingenuous in the extreme to use the “devolution deal” as a reason for the cut.

I am proud that Mebyon Kernow’s sister parties in the Westminster Parliament have put forward an Early Day motion (EDM) which has called for the funding cuts to be reversed.

Tabled by Angus MacNeil of the Scottish National Party, the motion has been signed by 42 MPs including 29 members of the SNP and all three members of Plaid Cymru, the single Green MP and a member of Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour Party. In terms of the establishment parties, the EDM has only been supported by five Labour MPs (out of a total of 232) and three Lib Dem MPs (out of eight). Not one of the UK’s 330 Conservative MPs has backed the language, which is frankly appalling.

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Well done to the Cornish rugby team for their good win over Surrey at Camborne today, and securing a place in the “county” championship final at Twickenham (Sunday 29th May).

It was great to see some many rugby supporters out in force, and to catch up with so many friends, old and new. It was especially nice to meet Michael Young and Ben Gilby, two MK members who both live outside of Cornwall but do so much good work for our cause.

Like many others, no doubt – I have spent the evening searching the internet for tickets, and I will be off to Twickenham a week tomorrow to support the men in black and gold.

Friday, 20 May 2016

It is less than 48 hours to the first of this year’s events at Indian Queens Pit and it should be a beauty.

The event has Ed Rowe (Kernow King) performing as Trevithick – “Cornwall’s greatest son” – and it is described as a “biographical comedy.” Directed by Kneehigh Theatre’s Associate Director Simon Harvey, it also stars actress Mary Woodvine.

The play will be on Sunday 22nd May, starting at 7.30. Tickets are only £9.00 and will be on sale on the night. We would love to see you there, enjoying a wonderful evening and supporting Queens Pit.

Sadly, the basis of much of the discussion was dictated by the recent Appeal Court decision to allow central government to re-introduce a threshold of ten housing units, below which affordable housing could not be sought (except in certain rural areas where the threshold would be five).

Once again, local policy is being undermined by the actions of central government.

One local contributor at the EiP noted that it was telling how, earlier in the week, developers and their representatives had argued that the need for affordable housing was a key justification for an uplift in housing numbers. But today, these same individuals were, with breathtaking double-standards, arguing for lower affordable housing targets and the inevitable delivery of less local needs housing.

Thursday, 19 May 2016

It has been another long day at Newquay’s Atlantic Hotel, with the Examination in Public of the proposed Cornwall Local Plan.

This morning commenced with continued discussions around the distribution of housing for each of Cornwall’s towns and associated Network Areas. Representatives of developers and landowners continued to make all manner of apparently “evidenced” arguments as to why housing numbers (in general) should go up but then, at the very end, descended into an unedifying scramble to argue for more housing in local areas where they just happened to have available land.

Consideration of the “eco-community” proposal commenced at about noon and went on to about 3.40.

Cornwall Council presented their argument in favour of the development which was backed by Eco-bos, the promoter of the scheme. And, in an act of shocking self-interest, representatives of Wainhomes argued a range of legalistic points against the principle of the development, pushing instead for a 1,300 development near to St Austell.

I spoke a number of times in the debate on behalf of a number of objectors. Also speaking was Peter Clemo, the vice-chairman of Treverbyn Parish Council.

We set out our opposition to the ‘eco-community’ and made a wide range of comments.

I argued that the ‘eco-community’ at West Carclaze & Baal had been driven by the central government ‘eco-town’ initiative and inclusion of the St Austell ‘eco-town’ in a planning policy statement. I added that the cancellation of the PPS in 2015 removed that policy direction and should allow the principle of the development to be revisited.

I pointed out that the level of housing growth proposed for the China Clay Network Area, including the ‘eco-community,’ would be excessive. In particular, I reminded one and all that the level of housing growth between 1991 and 2010 was 47%, and extrapolated to 2030 (including the eco-community) would be 87%.

While arguing that the ‘eco-community’ be removed from the Plan, I stated that I felt the resultant reduction in the overall housing target would not make the Plan unsound. However, I added that if the Inspector deemed it necessary to reallocate the “residual” housing, this should be done pro-rata across Cornwall and not located elsewhere in the parishes of the China Clay Area or on the fringes of the town of St Austell.

I also expressed our strong objection to the assertion from Wainhomes that they should be able to bring forward an additional large development to the north of St Austell in lieu of the ‘eco-community.’ I made sure that the Inspector was made aware that this counter-proposal had failed to garner any local support.

And in terms of the likely detail for the scheme, Peter Clemo raised concerns about the scale of the development, the loss of many of the remaining green fields between St Austell and Penwithick, the impact on the local infrastructure and public services, fears over flooding, and more. He said that it was clear the applicant had not adequately addressed the nature of local concerns to merit inclusion of the scheme within the Cornwall Local Plan.

We now have to wait and see what approach the Inspector will take on this issue.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

It has been a long day, which I spent at the Atlantic Hotel in Newquay where the Cornwall Local Plan is being examined by a Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

After yesterday’s proceedings, at which the overall housing target (and the so-called “objectively assessed need”) were debated, today included consideration of the distribution of housing across Cornwall and in the various Network Areas.

It is fair to say that the numerous representatives of large house-building firms and landowners were very vocal in seeking an uplift in housing numbers generally and more specifically in those areas where they had interests.

I however used much of the day to prepare for tomorrow’s hearing, when I will be speaking in opposition to the so-called “eco-community” planned for land near Penwithick.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

At Cornwall Council today, elected members of the authority voted to accept the findings of an independent panel into councillor allowances for the next council (ie. May 2017 onwards).

The report from the Independent Remuneration Panel stated that the evidence presented to them showed, on average, councillors took 31.5 hours per week to carry out their basic duties.

They recommended that the basic allowance should therefore be £13,910 per annum, up from £12,250.

The report also included changes to the SRAs (Special Responsibility Allowances) paid to certain councillors for taking on additional responsibilities, such as being a Cabinet Member or chairing a committee.

I have already been some adverse comments on social media and elsewhere, and I would like to be clear that I did vote to accept the recommendations of the Panel.

Given the amount of work that Cornwall Councillors do, I do not think the basic allowance to be excessive.

I would also add that I do not like the term “allowance” as I work full-time as an elected representative and consider what I get paid to be my wages.

It is also the case that when the unitary authority was set up – and councillor numbers were reduced from 331 to 123 – councillor allowances were not properly agreed prior to the 2009 election. And, ever since, the issue has been a political football and councillors have twice voted down recommendations from Independent Remuneration Panels.

The reality is that if Councillors had accepted the original recommendations on allowances in 2010, there would have been no increase proposed for 2017 at all!

Speaking for myself, at the present time I receive the basic allowance and an additional SRA for chairing the Planning PAC (Policy Advisory Committee) of £6,000. My income (before tax) is therefore a little over £18,000 for which I spend 45 hours a week on council duties – though it is often significantly more.

Indeed, I can evidence various periods in my time as a councillor when I have worked for less than the minimum wage.

And ironically, the Panel has reduced the SRA for the PAC that I chair, and if was re-elected in 2017 and lucky enough to be appointed to the same or similar committee chair, I would actually be earning less in the future!

Cornwall Council today voted overwhelmingly to support a proposal to lobby central government to amend the Parliamentary and Voting System Act 2011 to ensure that a cross-Tamar Devonwall parliamentary seat is not created through the present Boundary Review.

The proposal came from a motion that I had previously tabled to a meeting of Full Council, but had been reworked by officers and councillors through the Constitution and Governance Committee,

Opposition to the motion came from the former leader of the Conservative group, Fiona Ferguson, who made a couple of unwise comments. I will blog more about this when I can get the exact quotes from the webcam.

It looked to me that about ten Conservatives opposed the proposal and some also abstained.

The resolution agreed at the meeting was as follows:

(a) Under the current provisions of the Parliamentary and Voting System Act 2011 (“the Act”) it is inevitable that at least one parliamentary constituency will be created that cuts across Cornwall’s historic boundary; (b) the Act was passed prior to the Government’s announcement on 24 April 2014 that the Cornish would be formally recognised as a national minority coming within the protective Articles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; and (c) It is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the said Framework Convention and its application to the protection of the Cornish that the implementation of the current parliamentary constituency review in accordance with the provisions of the Act would lead to the territorial integrity of Cornwall and its historic boundary being compromised.

Council therefore resolves:

(1) to urge the Government to respect the spirit of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and take all necessary steps to amend the Act prior to completion of the said parliamentary constituency review to specifically protect the parliamentary constituencies of Cornwall so that they remain fully within the boundaries of Cornwall; (2) to write to all the Members of Parliament for Cornwall to seek their urgent and active support for the proposed amendment as set out under paragraph (1) above; and (3) that the Leader seek an urgent meeting with the Boundary Commission for England to raise the fundamental constitutional issue of the integrity of Cornwall’s boundary and the impact of the said Framework Convention that is critical to the effective implementation of the said parliamentary constituency review.

Monday, 16 May 2016

The next meeting for Mebyon Kernow members in the St Austell & Newquay Constituency has been arranged to take place on the evening of Friday 20th May.

The meeting will take place at ClayTAWC in St Dennis and start at 7.30.

Anyone from the St Austell & Newquay Constituency, who would be interested in finding more about MK and attending the meeting, can call me on 07791 876607 or email me on dickcole@btinternet.com for more details.

In this coming week’s Cornish Guardian, I have chosen to focus on recent developments in planning policy from central government and the likely adverse impact on Cornwall. It will be as follows:

In my column last week, I covered the fantastic news that 83% of voters in St Ives had endorsed a Neighbourhood Plan for their town, which included a policy to ensure that new-build properties could not be sold as second homes.

You may recall that I described it as being of “considerable significance for the development of Neighbourhood Plans” across Cornwall and that it represented a “fight-back against a top-down planning system ...”

A few days on, I must admit to being very worried about what happens next.

It has been well-publicised that developers are seeking to challenge the outcome of the referendum vote and it also appears that the Conservative MP for West Cornwall is publicly talking about how this aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan is against government policy.

But there have also been newspaper reports stating that central government ministers could “intervene to overturn the ban” on second homes which, I feel, would be an affront to democracy in Cornwall.

And while we are waiting to see if they act, there have been other announcements about planning which, as Chairman of the unitary authority’s Planning PAC (Policy Advisory Committee), has left me despairing.

The Conservative Government has won a ruling which means that developers will not have to provide affordable homes on small sites.

In 2014, the Government introduced a “small sites affordable housing contributions policy” that introduced a “national threshold of ten units,” below which affordable housing could not be sought. In certain rural areas, the threshold would have been five – though many rural areas in Cornwall fell outside of the Government’s ridiculous assessment of what is and what is not rural.

The decision was successfully challenged in the courts by West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council but, this week, the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and sided with the Government.

This is a massive set-back for Cornwall, as is the news that the Housing and Planning Bill also received royal assent last week.

Described by numerous agencies and charities as “disastrous,” this wide-ranging piece of legislation will, for example, further undermine the provision of affordable homes for rent with the extension of “Right to Buy” and a new focus on non-affordable starter homes. It will also undermine local decision-making with its fast-tracked “permission in principle for development” which will make it more difficult for local communities to object to proposals.

All in all, this has considerable significance for the second stage of the EiP (Examination in Public) into the draft Cornwall Local Plan, at which an Inspector will review whether the document is in-line with central government rules and regulations.

The EiP will take place over the next two weeks and will also be attended by a large number of developers, who will seek to put pressure on the Inspector to go against the views of local communities in many parts of Cornwall.

Sunday, 15 May 2016

The Examination in Public into the draft Cornwall Local Plan re-starts tomorrow.

On Tuesday morning, a peaceful protest has been organised by “Your Kids Future Cornwall” to shw local anger at the over-development happening across Cornwall. It starts at 9.00, and the organisers would welcome support from anyone who is able to attend to show their support.

I would add that I believe those individuals who will be making representations across the next two weeks would almost certainly welcome seeing supporters at the actual hearings as well.

It is my intention to be there for much of next week and, on Thursday, I will be making comments about the so-called “eco-community” planned for West Carclaze. However, on Tuesday, I will be at the annual meeting of Cornwall Council.

Friday, 13 May 2016

In yet another blow to the planning system, the Conservative Government has won a ruling which means that developers will not have to provide affordable homes on small sites.

In 2014, the Government introduced a “small sites affordable housing contributions policy” that introduced a “national threshold of ten units,” below which affordable housing could not be sought. In certain rural areas, the threshold would be five – but many rural areas fall outside of the government’s ridiculous assessment of what is and what is not rural.

The decision had been successfully challenged in the courts by West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council but, this week, the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and sided with the Government.

It is also the case that the dreadful Housing and Planning Bill is about to receive Royal Assent. I will write more about this extremely damaging piece of legislation more fully in the near-future.

Thursday, 12 May 2016

At this morning’s meeting of the unitary authority's Constitution and Governance Committee, members debated a motion which I had tabled to Full Council opposing the creation of a Devonwall seat in the upcoming Boundary Review.

In particular, I had raised the importance of the Framework Convention for National Minorities.

A revised resolution was agreed, that had been worked up by a senior officer of the Council and was further amended by members at the meeting.

It was as follows:

(a) Under the current provisions of the Parliamentary and Voting System Act 2011 (“the Act”) it is inevitable that at least one parliamentary constituency will be created that cuts across Cornwall’s historic boundary;(b) the Act was passed prior to the Government’s announcement on 24 April 2014 that the Cornish would be formally recognised as a national minority coming within the protective Articles of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; and(c) It is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the said Framework Convention and its application to the protection of the Cornish that the implementation of the current parliamentary constituency review in accordance with the provisions of the Act would lead to the territorial integrity of Cornwall and its historic boundary being compromised.

Council therefore resolves:

(1) to urge the Government to respect the spirit of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and take all necessary steps to amend the Act prior to completion of the said parliamentary constituency review to specifically protect the parliamentary constituencies of Cornwall so that they remain fully within the boundaries of Cornwall;(2) to write to all the Members of Parliament for Cornwall to seek their urgent and active support for the proposed amendment as set out under paragraph (1) above; and(3) that the Leader seek an urgent meeting with the Boundary Commission for England to raise the fundamental constitutional issue of the integrity of Cornwall’s boundary and the impact of the said Framework Convention that is critical to the effective implementation of the said parliamentary constituency review.

Sunday, 8 May 2016

My article in this week’s Cornish Guardian covers the recent elections and the potential challenge to the St Ives Neighbourhood Plan. It contains material that I have already included within blog entries on this site, but it is here for the sake of completeness. It will be as follows:

There was a myriad of elections on Thursday 5th May, which demonstrated a growing variance in the various nations and regions across the United Kingdom.

Mebyon Kernow’s sister parties in Scotland and Wales both did well.

Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP won a third consecutive Scottish Parliament election, which is a truly amazing achievement. The SNP polled a record number of constituency votes – at over one million – while the Labour Party had its worst election in Scotland since 1918 and the Conservatives became the official opposition at Holyrood.

In Wales, the Conservatives lost ground while Plaid Cymru became the main opposition to Labour, with the Plaid leader Leanne Wood winning the previously Labour heartland seat of the Rhondda. UKIP also managed to secure their first Assembly Members.

Politics in Northern Ireland continues to be dominated by the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein, though two anti-austerity campaigners from the People before Profits Alliance were elected in Belfast and Foyle.

And in London, Labour’s Sadiq Khan won a resounding victory to become the Mayor of London, taking over from Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party. It has been widely reported that the new Mayor had achieved the “largest personal mandate of any politician in UK history” with a total of 1,310,143 votes.

There was also the shambolic elections across Cornwall, England and Wales, for various Crime and Police Commissioners, as well as local elections in many parts of England, and the various political parties are still arguing about who did well and who didn’t.

Here in Cornwall, there was one further localised poll, and it was fantastic to see 83% of voters in St Ives endorsing a Neighbourhood Plan for their town, which included a policy to ensure that any new-build properties would not be able to be sold as second homes.

This is of considerable significance for the development of Neighbourhood Plans in other parts of Cornwall, and it represents a symbolic fight-back against a top-down planning system which is out of control.

However, a firm of developers (RLT Built Environment Limited) is seeking to challenge the democratically expressed views of the people of St Ives through a judicial review. One of the grounds being argued by RLT is that the new policy would impact on the “human rights” of those people who would wish to purchase a second home.

It is clear that their motivation has nothing to do with what is best for St Ives or Cornwall, and it is all about their own profit-driven house-building plans.

It is my view that the ability of developers to challenge such a local democratic decision is plain wrong and such challenges must be defeated!

What is more, I find it particularly distasteful that RLT are talking about the rights of the multiple-property-owning classes. What about the “human rights” of those individuals and families who cannot afford a first home, and are paying a ridiculous amount of rent to simply put a basic roof over their heads and which, as a consequence, is undermining their wider quality of life?

Saturday, 7 May 2016

Today’s Western Morning News covers the potential “court challenge” against the St Ives Neighbourhood Plan, which includes measures to prevent new properties in the town being sold as second homes.

It reports that Steve McTeare of RLT Built Environment Limited is launching the legal challenge and one of the grounds is that the new policy would allegedly impact on the “human rights” of those people who would wish to purchase a second home.

I find it distasteful that Mr McTeare is seeking to undermine the democratically expressed views of St Ives on behalf of the multiple property owning classes.

If he wants to make a stand on the issue of “human rights,” how about backing those people who cannot afford a first home and / or are paying a ridiculous amount of rent which is undermining their wider quality of life.

The MK campaign stall (with Michael Bunney and Matt Luke) was in St Austell this morning in White River Place – thanks to WRP for the permission to pitch up.

Thanks to all those people who stopped to talk and discuss local issues and what they want for Cornwall. It was a lovely morning and certainly a lot less stressful than watching the last gasp, but wonderful, victory of the Cornwall rugby team (over Gloucestershire) at Redruth’s Recreation Ground. Well done Cornwall!

Friday, 6 May 2016

It is also fantastic that voters in St Ives yesterday endorsed a Neighbourhood Plan for their town, which includes a policy to ensure that any new-build properties cannot be sold as second homes.

The vote was overwhelming with 3,075 people voting yes, while 616 took the opposite view.

This is of considerable significance for the development of Neighbourhood Plans in other parts of Cornwall, and represents a symbolic fight-back against a top-down planning system which is out of control.

However, a firm of developers (RLT Built Environment Limited) is seeking to challenge the democratically expressed views of the people of St Ives through a judicial review.

It is clear that their motivation has nothing to do with what is best for St Ives or Cornwall, and it is all about their own profit-driven house-building plans.

The ability of developers to challenge local democratic decisions is one of the things that is so wrong with the planning system in the UK today – and such actions must be defeated!

The re-election of the Scottish National Party at Holyrood is a truly amazing achievement and, as Nicola Sturgeon has said "the SNP made history" by becoming "the first party to win a third consecutive Scottish Parliament election."

The mainstream media may be focussing on the fact the SNP will not have an overall majority, but the numbers do not lie and it has been summed up well on the SNP website.

The SNP has won an historic third term in the Scottish Parliament with 63 MSPs, over a million votes in Scotland’s constituencies – a first – and the highest share of the constituency vote ever achieved.

Here’s a run-down of the Scottish Parliament 2016 Holyrood election in numbers:

At over a million, the SNP polled a record number of constituency votes – 1,059,897 to be precise. No party has ever done this before. The previous highest number was 908,392, polled by Labour in 1999.

In fact, the SNP polled more than Labour and the Tories put together. Collectively they polled 1,016,105 votes.

The SNP has won 59 constituency seats, surpassing the previous record of 53 seats, achieved by Labour in 1999, as well as the SNP in 2011.

The SNP has polled 46.5 per cent in the constituency vote, up from 45.4 per cent in 2011. This is higher than the previous record.

The SNP won a clean sweep of six out of Scotland’s seven cities: Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, Stirling and Perth.

It was also great to see Plaid Cymru achieve a significant increase in their vote and increase their number of Assembly Members from 11 to 12, and to overtake the Conservatives to become the second largest party in the Assembly.

And what a win for Leanne Wood, who won her home seat of the Rhondda, overturning a 6,739 Labour majority to win with a majority of 3,459 for Plaid Cymru.

I am personally also very pleased to see Steffan Lewis elected to the Assembly via the list for South East Wales. Steffan has been a good friend of Cornwall for many years, speaking at a recent MK Conference and I know he will make an amazing AM.

As the leader of MK, I will continue to take inspiration from the achievements of both Plaid and the SNP.

Thursday, 5 May 2016

It was great to hear SNP MP Angus MacNeil on Radio Cornwall yesterday, talking about the importance of the Cornish and the Early Day Motion that he had tabled in Parliament in support of funding for the language.

I am pleased that his EDM now has a total of 34 signatures. Most come from our good friends in the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru teams, along with one member of the SDLP in Northern Ireland, three Lib Dems and five Labour MPs.

At this time, the EDM has not been supported by a single Conservative MP, which is appalling.

The support from SNP and Plaid also emphasises why, for Cornwall, it is important that we build Mebyon Kernow into a stronger political force.

As the Leader of Mebyon Kernow, I would like to wish good luck to MK’s sister parties in today’s very important elections.

It is my sincere hope that Leanne Wood’s Plaid Cymru can make a significant breakthrough in the Assembly elections, and Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP team in the Scottish Parliamentt will continue to demonstrate that there can be an alternative to the same-old politics dominated by the Westminster parties.

It would also be great to see English regionalism making progress with Yorkshire First’s local government candidates.

Wednesday, 4 May 2016

It is less than three weeks to the first of this year’s events at Indian Queens Pit and it should be a beauty.

The event has Ed Rowe (Kernow King) performing as Trevithick – “Cornwall’s greatest son” – and it is described as a “biographical comedy.” Directed by Kneehigh Theatre’s Associate Director Simon Harvey, it also stars actress Mary Woodvine.

The play will be on Sunday 22nd May, starting at 7.30. Tickets are only £9.00 and will be on sale on the night. We would love to see you there, enjoying a wonderful evening and supporting Queens Pit.

On behalf of Cllr Matt Luke and myself, I have made further representations to the Inspector dealing with the Examination into the Cornwall Local Plan which recommences on 16 May.

In particular, we have addressed his pre-hearing questions about the so-called “eco-community.”

Our representation is set out below. The Inspector’s text is repeated below in italics and our comments are in bold:

Principle

4.17 Is the identification as a broad location in this Plan of a new community at West Carclaze/Baal justified in the context of the following:

Progress/decisions already made in the context of previous/existing strategies eg China Clay Regeneration Plan and recently committed and planned public investment in the area (eg road improvement, Technology Park/ESRAM building)?

It is our view that the construction of the Technology Park cannot be used as a justification for the construction of 1,500 new properties at West Carclaze and Baal. We would refer the Inspector to the recent meeting (28th April 2016) of the Council’s Economy and Culture PAC (Policy Advisory Committee). At this meeting, it was agreed to recommend to the Cabinet that “the delivery of the Carluddon Technology Park, at a total cost of £9,041,075, be approved” with the unitary authority acting as the “accountable body for £6,238,000 of European Regional Development Funding.” Match funding of £2,803,075 was identified “from the following budgets; a. £1,753,075 from the EU match funding capital budget, approved as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy; b. £763,000 from the eco-communities budget within Planning; c. £287,000 in-kind match from the value of CC owned land.”

Please note that this was due to be agreed by the Council’s ruling Cabinet on 4th May (following the production of this note).

We would point out that no money from the construction of the 1,500 houses would therefore be going towards the construction of the Technology Park, showing the disjuncture between the housing development and other developments in this area.

The substantial area of currently despoiled land, but taking into account that there are the long term restoration conditions?

It is our understanding that there are significant restoration conditions in this area, which place considerable obligations on the landowner. We note that the Council, in its representation to the Inspector’s preliminary questions, also downplays the loss of green field land as part of the scheme.

It is our view that Cornwall Council should furnish the Inspector with detailed information about the restoration conditions as well as further information about the amount of housing that would be constructed on green fields (or “previously unworked land” as described by the unitary authority).

We would point out that the landowner (and associated partners) do not need to build 1,500 housing units in order to undertake the restoration it is already obliged to carry out.

The particular scale of development proposed (1,500 dwellings with 1,200 in the plan-period) – why is this scale necessary to achieve the stated benefits?

It is our view that the scale of development that has taken place (and is planned to take place) in the China Clay Area is excessive and we would refer the Inspector to our previous representations on this matter. In particular, we would point out that the level of housing growth between 1991 and 2030 would be 87%.

Whether it is deliverable to achieve the expectations of the Plan.

It is our view that the removal of the “eco-community” proposal would not, in any way, make the remainder of the Local Plan unsound.

Irrespective of this particular proposal, does the overall strategy of the Plan/Council/LEP justify/require these 1,200 dwellings (in this plan-period) either within the China Clay CNA or the wider grouping of the 3 CNAs and or/the Regeneration Plan Area (see text in the Plan, version J.2, PP9, p157). If not assigned to West Carclaze/Baal where should they go?

It is our view that the “eco-community” at West Carclaze and Baal became an allocation in the draft Cornwall Local Plan because of the (now cancelled) Planning Policy Statement which said that an “eco-town” should be built near St Austell. Officers at Cornwall Council should be willing to confirm that, during the development of the Local Plan document, the unitary authority consistently viewed the “eco-community” as a “strategic” and not a “local” allocation. On numerous occasions, it was stated that if it was not delivered, the housing allocation would be redistributed across Cornwall as a whole.

We are therefore particularly disturbed that the Council, in its representation to the Inspector’s preliminary questions, stated in the “Sustainability Appraisal of the Cornwall Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2010-2030 SA report Addendum January 2016” it has undertaken “consideration of further reasonable alternatives for specific CNAs and includes assessment of St Austell CNA/China Clay CNA/Eco Community … it assesses two options for providing 1,500 homes, a concentrated approach i.e. the Eco-Communities or dispersed approach through distribution through the CNA.”

It remains our view that if the “eco-community” is removed from the Cornwall Local Plan and the Inspector deems it necessary, any residual target should be reallocated across Cornwall in a pro-rata fashion and not located elsewhere in the parishes of the China Clay Area or on the fringes of the town of St Austell.

4.18 deals with the proposed development at Par Docks, but our comments are restricted to West Carclaze and Baal.

Detailed matters/requirements

4.19 In LI.ID.3, 3.3/3.4 I asked about the justification for the energy efficiency/renewable energy requirements etc of the policy. The Council’s response draws on the national picture, but does not explain why the requirements are specifically justified for this development when not sought in similar terms for any other development. In short, why only here/why here at all?

We are concerned at the nature of this query. This proposal, which we oppose, only came about because of a Government push to construct “eco-towns” which would comprise properties with a very high environmental performance. Indeed, if it were not for that initiative, we would not be debating the merits of a proposal to build 1,500 properties in an area so completely disconnected from existing settlements

It would however be particularly galling if this development was allowed to proceed with lower environmental standards than initially promised.

4.20 I also queried the 30% affordable housing requirement. The Council’s response confirms that this is above the zonal rate for the area of 25%. The Council will be aware that I have seen no evidence to support this approach and that the site developer Eco-Bos seeks 25%. Given the apparent close working between the Council and Eco-Bos, I would hope that this matter could be resolved by the parties before the hearing. Again, this proposal came through the Government push to construct “eco-towns” when higher levels of affordable housing were expected. The early iterations of an “eco-town” on this site variously promised 40-50% affordable housing (Clay Country Eco-town The Facts; 2008) or 40% affordable housing (see Clay Country Eco-town Summary Booklet; 2009).

We consider 30% to be too low and feel it would also be particularly galling if this development was allowed to proceed with an affordable housing target as low as 25%.

4.21 The table in policy 2a gives a total figure of 1,500 dwellings for the eco-communities and a footnote indicates that this is made up of 1,200 dwellings at West Carclaze/Baal and 300 at Par Docks within the plan-period. The Council confirms that it regards the capacity of the sites as 1,500 and 500 respectively. Should these figures be used in the Plan so as to indicate the full extent of the proposals, whilst recognising that not all will be delivered in the plan-period?

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

My article in tomorrow’s Cornish Guardian newspaper looks at the “battle bus” scandal surrounding Scott Mann MP and others. The much-too-reasonable article will be as follows:

Politicians work hard to generate publicity to promote their own particular political party, their views and indeed themselves.

But increasingly, there are times when MPs and councillors wish they weren’t being featured in local newspapers, on radio and television and, of course, on social media.

I am sure that is how North Cornwall MP Scott Mann feels at the moment, with all the coverage about whether the cost of his 2015 General Election campaign exceeded the spending limit.

Readers of the Cornish Guardian will be aware that the Electoral Commission, and even the local police, are investigating complaints that “Mr Mann's declared election expenses did not portray an accurate picture of his spending.”

The reality is that limits were indeed set on what could be spent in individual constituency contests, but only in the period between 1st January 2015 and polling day in May 2015 and, during this period, political parties could also spend significant amounts of money on their so-called “national” campaigns.

Mr Mann’s problems arise from the visit of a so-called “battle bus” to the North Cornwall constituency, the costs of which were recorded as part of “national” expenditure. This is being challenged by political opponents and others, who believe that these expenses should have been declared locally.

In addressing this issue, I will not be seeking to embarrass Scott Mann as this is not a new phenomenon and the three largest political parties are all culpable in this regard. They have all had numerous “battle buses” in the past and I am sure they spent most of their time in key or marginal seats, but nonetheless recorded the expenditure as part of “national” campaigns.

There are plenty of similar examples of such practices, though I will give just two.

Political parties have often erected massive posters on billboards in prominent locations and I understand that this expenditure is often also deemed “non-local,” though the posters tend to appear in the seats that particular parties think they could win – and not across the UK as a whole.

It may surprise some readers of the Cornish Guardian that the costs of election poster-boards which do not have the name of the candidate on them – but simply proclaim “Conservative,” “Labour” or “Liberal Democrat” – have, on occasion, also been classed as “national” expenditure, even though the signs inevitably appear in greater numbers in existing or target seats.

This all shows how imaginatively the expenditure “returns” have been compiled for many years and, of course, for the last General Election there were no spending restrictions prior to January 2015.

During this time, certain political parties spent an absolute fortune and it wasn’t just the Tories. Labour’s millionaire candidate in Camborne and Redruth spent over £100,000 of his own money in the run-up to the period of restricted expenditure.

So, it is my view that this whole debate should be widened out and we should all be pushing for really far-reaching and more comprehensive reforms to better control election expenditure, in order to ensure fairer elections in the future.

Sunday, 1 May 2016

Mebyon Kernow has just published its latest edition of Cornish Nation magazine, which will soon be sent out to all party members.

It includes features about MK’s call for 2016 to be the year of Cornish recognition, our opposition to the cuts to Cornish language funding, a report from the recent EFA General Assembly, a tribute to Charles Thomas, book reviews, numerous news updates, and much more.

Anyone who would like a complimentary copy of the magazine – either as a pdf or in hard copy – can request one from me at dickcole@btinternet.com.